Did Harry lie to Michael, or worse?

[Mira]

Much as I think Harry and you have a point that it would probably have been safer to keep her somewhere with Harry - Susan was probably primarily thinking about being as much a mother to Maggie as she could be, and that required a foster home in South America.

Problem, any connection no matter how distant that she maintained made her child vulnerable to being found and used by the Red Court.  Hell, Martin should have seen that and told her so, but either he didn't figuring he use this later or Susan was too hard headed to listen..  Even naming her Maggie telegraphed a connection that led back to Harry and Eb.   Better she had given birth and then consented to a blind adoption by someone in another country.

[TrueMonk]

Skin game spoiler

(click to show/hide)

Did anyone else consider the symmetry in Harry sacrificing Susan and Nico sacrificing Deirdre. Of course it is not the same, but it is not so different either. If Nico and Deirdre believe they are saving the world from something and the only way to do it is by getting the artifacts.

[nadia.skylark]

Did anyone else consider the symmetry in Harry sacrificing Susan and Nico sacrificing Deirdre. Of course it is not the same, but it is not so different either.

Definitely!

[Mira]

Skin game spoiler

(click to show/hide)

Did anyone else consider the symmetry in Harry sacrificing Susan and Nico sacrificing Deirdre. Of course it is not the same, but it is not so different either. If Nico and Deirdre believe they are saving the world from something and the only way to do it is by getting the artifacts.

Not quite, apples to oranges, both fruit but very different...   Harry didn't sacrifice Susan to as you put it, save the world.. He did it to save his daughter,  he didn't sacrifice his daughter..  Also he didn't set up the curse that backfired on the Red King, the Red King did.  There is also evidence that Nic lied to his daughter as far as the future of her spirit, did she fully understand that Hades wasn't going to let it off as far as punishment goes? 

[Avernite]

Not quite, apples to oranges, both fruit but very different...   Harry didn't sacrifice Susan to as you put it, save the world.. He did it to save his daughter,  he didn't sacrifice his daughter..  Also he didn't set up the curse that backfired on the Red King, the Red King did.  There is also evidence that Nic lied to his daughter as far as the future of her spirit, did she fully understand that Hades wasn't going to let it off as far as punishment goes?

I'm not sure I see it that way.

Instead I think Nicodemus is specifically set up as a foil for Harry. Harry is not beyond making the hard calls, and often strays to dodgy, but always knows (except during Changes, and see how that struck back at him?). Nicodemus is not beyond making the hard calls, regularly strays to dodgy, but has a hard time knowing when he's being dodgy and when he's making the hard calls.

IF Nicodemus was truly saving the world with the sacrifice of Deirdre, rather than merely furthering a quest to power, I would say he has a claim to it simply being one of those hard calls. Harder than Harry's sacrifice of Susan, sure, but what is one daughter against all the children that will ever be?

[Mira]

IF Nicodemus was truly saving the world with the sacrifice of Deirdre, rather than merely furthering a quest to power, I would say he has a claim to it simply being one of those hard calls. Harder than Harry's sacrifice of Susan, sure, but what is one daughter against all the children that will ever be?

As I said, both are fruit, but they are not the same.  The difference between your two examples is something called pre-planning.   Nic planned all along to sacrifice his daughter to get into the vault.  At the moment we do not know what his plans for the artifacts really are, just what he claimed to Harry, and we know Nic never lies, right?  Harry wasn't about to sacrifice his daughter, this is why he went to C.I. to save her, nor was it his plan to sacrifice Susan to save her, that came down to no real choices in the end.

[nadia.skylark]

The difference between your two examples is something called pre-planning.   Nic planned all along to sacrifice his daughter to get into the vault.

This may be somewhat blurry. Harry may not have intended specifically to sacrifice Susan, but the whole "if the world burns because of what I do, then me and the kid will roast marshmallows" thing was pretty indicative that he was prepared to do something problematic.

[Mira]

This may be somewhat blurry. Harry may not have intended specifically to sacrifice Susan, but the whole "if the world burns because of what I do, then me and the kid will roast marshmallows" thing was pretty indicative that he was prepared to do something problematic.

  It is also running at the mouth at what he'd be prepared to do, big difference between that and true pre-planning... Pre-planning means you are planning for what may happen on your mission..  Nic knew beforehand what was needed at the second gate, blood sacrifice, and coldly planned for it.. 

[nadia.skylark]

It is also running at the mouth at what he'd be prepared to do, big difference between that and true pre-planning... Pre-planning means you are planning for what may happen on your mission..  Nic knew beforehand what was needed at the second gate, blood sacrifice, and coldly planned for it..

True. In my mind, the difference between what Nicodemus did and what Harry did is the difference between buying a gun, stalking someone to figure out the best time and place to kill them, and then following through; and buying a gun, deciding to bring it with you when you rob a house, and then shooting the homeowner when they come at you with their own weapon. The burglar may not have planned to murder anybody, but they accepted the possibility when they brought the gun with, and they'll still get charged with some degree of murder.

(Obviously, Harry had good intentions. But given we don't know what Nicodemus's long-term intentions are regarding the artifacts, I tend to consider it a non-issue when comparing the two.)

[Mira]

True. In my mind, the difference between what Nicodemus did and what Harry did is the difference between buying a gun, stalking someone to figure out the best time and place to kill them, and then following through; and buying a gun, deciding to bring it with you when you rob a house, and then shooting the homeowner when they come at you with their own weapon. The burglar may not have planned to murder anybody, but they accepted the possibility when they brought the gun with, and they'll still get charged with some degree of murder.

(Obviously, Harry had good intentions. But given we don't know what Nicodemus's long-term intentions are regarding the artifacts, I tend to consider it a nonissue when comparing the two.)

Huge difference, the end may be the same, but there is a difference..  Oh and please give page and book so things can be read in context..

One of the come backs that Uriel had to your quote... Ghost Story page 458

It is one thing to say, 'Let the word burn.'  It is another to say, Let Molly burn."  The difference is all in a name.

[nadia.skylark]

Huge difference, the end may be the same, but there is a difference..

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference; I'm saying that the difference is not as large as people might think.

Oh and please give page and book so things can be read in context..

Sorry, can't. All my books are in storage. Also, I kinda figured that anyone who's on this forum would remember that quote--it's pretty memorable.

One of the come backs that Uriel had to your quote... Ghost Story page 458

Thanks for finding more support for my claim! The fact that an archangel steps in to help convince Harry to regret his actions really demonstrates what I'm trying to say here.

[Mira]

Sorry, can't. All my books are in storage. Also, I kinda figured that anyone who's on this forum would remember that quote--it's pretty memorable.

The quote, yes, everyone remembers it but context is important...  Without  context it can be made to mean almost anything...   Harry said it, is is memorable, but then did he coldly go on to plan the burning of the world?  Obviously not, but then what stopped him?

Thanks for finding more support for my claim! The fact that an archangel steps in to help convince Harry to regret his actions really demonstrates what I'm trying to say here.

However Harry didn't let the world burn. Did he?  What Uriel was trying to tell him that the world is made up of people like Molly.  And Harry answers he is starting to get that..  What I am saying is there is a vast difference between saying in an emotionally charged moment, let the world burn, and actually coldly planning for the world's burning.. 

[nadia.skylark]

The quote, yes, everyone remembers it but context is important...  Without  context it can be made to mean almost anything...   Harry said it, is is memorable, but then did he coldly go on to plan the burning of the world?  Obviously not, but then what stopped him?

The context was that Murphy was saying that the supernatural world was on a precipice, and Harry's actions might be what pushed it over.

However Harry didn't let the world burn. Did he?

In context, yes he did. Harry destabilized the supernatural world, allowing the fomor to move in causing what appears to be a massive loss of hope around the world (based on Ghost Story and what Butters says in Skin Game about the state of things).

It has always been my contention that Harry's actions in Changes caused as much damage as Nicodemus's plague would have. It may not have been his intention, but he was warned about the possible consequences of his actions well before he acted, and specifically chose not to care about them.

[Mira]

The context was that Murphy was saying that the supernatural world was on a precipice, and Harry's actions might be what pushed it over.

Page please, book, please....

In context, yes he did. Harry destabilized the supernatural world, allowing the fomor to move in causing what appears to be a massive loss of hope around the world (based on Ghost Story and what Butters says in Skin Game about the state of things).

Did anyone tell him if he wipes out the Red Court the Fomor would move in before hand? 

That was an unintentional consequence, not what he planned..  Harry did not have an agenda to destabilize the supernatural world..  He never pre-planned to reverse the bloodline spell, the spell was set up by the Red King in the first place. He is the one who didn't care or was so arrogant he didn't think it possible that Harry or anyone else could reverse it, and that he and all the RCVs could die as a consequence.  Sure, Harry could have just surrendered and let his daughter, himself, and his grandfather die..  Perhaps the natural balance between vamps and humans wouldn't have been destabilized, but then again what would have been the consequences if Eb's bloodline had been wiped out?  A bloodline that includes a starborn..   Context please, what the author is saying, not you.. That is why if you are going to use quotes you need to sight chapter and verse that goes along with them, otherwise things can be twisted...

The difference isn't that Nic didn't care about what the plague would do, it is he planned to do, if it worked it would do what he intended for it to do, it was part of his agenda..  Getting the artifacts is on his agenda, killing his daughter is a step towards that...

[nadia.skylark]

Page please, book, please....

Are you incapable of reading? Because I specifically said that I don't have the books with me--they're in storage.

Did anyone tell him if he wipes out the Red Court the Fomor would move in before hand?

Not specifically. But he was told that something really bad was likely to happen.

That was an unintentional consequence, not what he planned..  Harry did not have an agenda to destabilize the supernatural world..

If I shoot a gun through my apartment wall and kill someone, I may not have had an agenda to kill them, but I am still legally liable for murder/manslaughter because I have acted in a way that shows incredible recklessness and disregard for human life.

He never pre-planned to reverse the bloodline spell, the spell was set up by the Red King in the first place. He is the one who didn't care or was so arrogant he didn't think it possible that Harry or anyone else could reverse it, and that he and all the RCVs could die as a consequence.

The fact that the Red King was arrogant/didn't care does not actually absolve Harry of all consequences of his actions.

Sure, Harry could have just surrendered and let his daughter, himself, and his grandfather die..

You know, I actually responded to you saying essentially the same thing back on page one. Here is my response:

I don't think there was a better way at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it was horrible.

Perhaps the natural balance between vamps and humans wouldn't have been destabilized, but then again what would have been the consequences if Eb's bloodline had been wiped out?  A bloodline that includes a starborn..

And Harry knew none of this, so it has no relevance. If I shoot a gun through my apartment wall and end up hitting someone who's trying to rape my next door neighbor, that doesn't absolve me of my recklessness or my disregard for human life, because I didn't know that it was going to happen.

Context please, what the author is saying, not you.. That is why if you are going to use quotes you need to sight chapter and verse that goes along with them, otherwise things can be twisted...

First: Spelling. It's "cite," not "sight."

Second: You are free to post the text surrounding my quotes if you feel it is important. I would do it, but as I've said, I can't. If you don't cite it (or provide reasons why you can't), then I will consider your argument regarding citations invalid and assume you're bringing it up to cast unfounded doubts on my argument because you can't think of anything better.

Third: Yes, please cite what we know of starborn, and what evidence you have that losing one particular starborn would be so disastrous.

The difference isn't that Nic didn't care about what the plague would do, it is he planned to do, if it worked it would do what he intended for it to do, it was part of his agenda..  Getting the artifacts is on his agenda, killing his daughter is a step towards that...

This makes no sense. It's Harry that didn't care about the consequences of his actions, not Nicodemus. The difference between Nicodemus and Harry is the difference between first degree murder and 2nd/3rd degree murder (I'll look up legal codes when I'm not in class).

Edit: I looked it up. What Harry is guilty of is the equivalent of somewhere between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter (it turns out that 3rd degree murder only exists in a few states).

Wikipedia:

Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.

Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.

I'm not sure which it is: I would consider "malice aforethought" to be Harry's "let the world burn" thing, but he was already emotionally disturbed at the time, so I'm not sure how that would play out legally.

(Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the genocide thing, not Harry's murder of Susan specifically.)